but people who supposedly claim something does not a follower of ideology or valid application of talking-point make.

Additionally, has Romney not used "libertarian" talking points? Has Obama not?

You are avoiding the question like a plague and missing the entire point of this thread. You probably don't want to answer me in a positive way. Bane
was indeed using libertarian talking points to seduce the people of Gotham into destroying the city and allowing him to rule it. That's all I am
getting at here. That's the point of this thread.

This is like, if someone made a thread about how the movie lord of war was about capitalism at its finest and then you say, so what is your point?
That is the point!!!!

Maybe Bane was an archaist or a libertarian or an anarchist libertarian.I can't answer that question, but there is no doubt in my mind that he used
the talking points to seduce people. This is what all politicians do and other people who have an agenda. This has nothing to do with if he was in
fact a true follower of libertarianism. More of the question should be if he was a true follower of the League of Shadows? Because, he seemed to have
his own agenda.

Maybe I missed half the movie or something but when did Baine "rally the masses"?

The only people he rallied were the felons and lunatics. He gave his little speech in front of a prison to the prisoners. The regular people outside
were horrified and spent the rest of the movie hiding in their houses while the newly released army of felons ran amok.

I never saw any of the "occupy" or "libertarian" or other populist rallying everyone else seemed to see.

And it wasnt even much of a rallying cry. Just "hey people in prison, are you mad? Well come and be mad out here at the system that locked you up!"

Overall the movie was pretty disappointing. Very shallow. And the action was light and unimpressive. The final episode of the A-Team did a better job
at getting the same points across.

ETA: Now that I'm thinking about the movie more I can't get over how cheesy it was. The whole time I felt like I was being patronized by some Michael
Bay wannabe with cliche's left and right and the overuse of corny vehicles and ridiculous caricatures of personalities. I dont even think Bale was
trying anymore. There was more comedy in his expressions and voice than anything else.

Despite the fact that some people calling themselves libertarian may have said what you've provided here...:

Evil rich bankers that control everything suck
Cops are evil pigs that are corrupt
Government should be run by the people
Criminals are treated unfairly

...that doesn't mean these statements actually have anything to do with libertarian ideology (and to be quite clear, I'm MORE than a little sure that
people claiming a whole range of other political titles have said the exact same sort of things...) - which is summed up in "do what you want as long
as you're not intruding on anyone else's right to do the same, enjoy your liberty, and don't commit aggression against others or their property."

So, to answer you positively - yes, Bane said similar things, and yes, "libertarians" may have also said such things. But "christians" have also
espoused war, which is every bit as antithetical to the actual teachings of the Prince of Peace as these statements are to the actual teachings of
libertarianism.

It does but those are still talking points that the more vocal libertarians use. It doesn't matter if all libertarians don't believe that. Just like
how it doesn't matter that all Christians don't believe in the war stuff. They are still portrayed that way by the liberal media! Bane was using
libertarian talking points. It's plain and obvious! He accomplished what he wanted using those lies and seducing the people. I haven't heard
libertarians talk about property rights lately. They are just talking about the federal reserve at this point. In the film Bane effectively destroys
that!

It does but those are still talking points that the more vocal libertarians use. It doesn't matter if all libertarians don't believe that.
Just like how it doesn't matter that all Christians don't believe in the war stuff. They are still portrayed that way by the liberal media! Bane was
using libertarian talking points. It's plain and obvious! He accomplished what he wanted using those lies and seducing the people.

I suppose we're just going to discount the fact that people of all sorts of other political beliefs say the same thing, as you're apparently only
trying to dig at so-called libertarians here, then?

Can you not realized how biased you are here, by continually calling these libertarian talking points when - as far as I can tell - 'libertarians'
by absolutely no possible stretch of imagination have a monopoly on their use, and they are completely antithetical to actual libertarian ideals?

I haven't heard libertarians talk about property rights lately. They are just talking about the federal reserve at this point. In the film
Bane effectively destroys that!

It seems to me, then, have you have an incredibly insufficient supply of libertarian input and sources, my friend

I would like to suggest that Bane doesn’t equal Bain Capital, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, he represents Libertarianism at its finest! He regularly
quotes, “I am giving the city back to the people.” Or just states, “Back to the people.” He wants Gotham to be run by the people!

Far from representing Libertarian ideals that include the ownership of property, Bane in Nolan's film seems to more closely resemble communism. I am
not the only one who has gleened this from that film.

In this way, viewers see a familiar story unfold — one that is reminiscent of communist and fascist revolutions in Russia, Germany, Cambodia,
and North Korea. No matter how legitimate criticisms of the economic, political, and social order may be, any revolution that shatters the rule of law
or eliminates the market entirely will necessarily result in greater inequality, suffering, and death. Like the communist parties of real
authoritarian states, Bane and his cohorts represent a new ruling class that pretends to care about equality and liberation, but in practice resorts
to oppression and extreme violence.

The movie portrays Bane as the classic, proverbial liberator who rides into town on his big, White horse to free the 99% society from the top 1%
powers that be. If anything, Limbaugh should have been trying to semi-compare Bane to the Occupy Movement in theory. Bane even lays it all out there
as he directly promises to give the people a socialist utopia. One of the most striking lines from the movie was when the character known as Cat Woman
said to her apprentice in crime: this used to be someone’s house, and her apprentice replies by saying: yes, but now it’s everyone’s house! Now
that line is enough to send everyone who works at Fox News and all of its viewers into a socialistic coma.

This disingenuous, pseudo attempt at a socialistic utopia by the Bane character is a conservative’s ideological smorgasbord, because it represents
every socialistic, communistic, re-distribution of wealth image of President Obama that Fox News, the Republicans, and the Tea Party have so
religiously painted. Heck, if conservatives weren’t so simpleton-like, they would also be trying to compare Bane to President Obama instead of Bain
Capital, because it fits directly into their misguided, fear mongering narrative.

Bane has a cause, a purpose – he has something that’s almost like a political agenda: to give the city ‘back to its people’. He has
intention – to rid the city of corruption, to take back a world ruled by a decadent aristocracy and give it back to the masses. It is not mindless
chaos, but an organised overthrowing of an existent order to be replaced by new order. And if there is a little anarchist, socialist, Marxist or
communist in you – then you find yourself almost beginning to side with him. Almost.

Far from representing Libertarian ideals that include the ownership of property, Bane in Nolan's film seems to more closely resemble communism. I am
not the only one who has gleened this from that film.

First, I am not talking about ideals I am talking about my experiences with libertarian talking points. Second, sure others have different opinions
than I do. I am just voicing mine.

Yes he destroyed the stock market! But due to the poor editing of the movie it seemed to have little impact on the rest of the world...Since
Gotham is basically batman's world...

Ah. Well, he did attack a stock exchange to get access to Wayne stock, yes. I don't think he destroyed the stock market itself, and that's only
marginally related to the Fed (apologies if I misunderstood and you weren't getting at the Fed at all).

My, my, my. All one has to do is claim the message is anecdotal and then tell some whoppers with the clear intent to discredit an ideology, all the
while claiming this is not what is being done.

I have often heard people from the South say the same thing about their experience with Black people. I have also heard a few people justify their
remarks by claiming this was merely their experience regarding Jews. It is that experience that justifies the lie. Strange how that works, no?
Experience is presented as the reality to defend the lie, and as we all know, a lie is not rooted in reality.

My, my, my. All one has to do is claim the message is anecdotal and then tell some whoppers with the clear intent to discredit an ideology, all the
while claiming this is not what is being done.

That's the glory of this message board is it not? I voice my opinions, people can agree or disagree. Most people don't usually agree with me on here,
but that's perfectly fine by me! Not sure why you care so much. Bane clearly libertarian beliefs IMHO

You can show me other people's opinions all you want, but I am free to interpret the film however I see fit. This is still America.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.